Intention to comply with solid waste management practices among households in Butajira town, Southern Ethiopia using the theory of planned behavior.

BACKGROUND: One of the world's most serious environmental issues is solid waste management. It is critical for researchers to understand the intention to comply with solid waste management. Thus, we aim to determine the intention to comply with solid waste management practice among households in Butajira Town using the Theory of Planned Behavior.
METHOD: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of 422 households in Butajira from June 1 to June 30, 2020. The constructs and principles of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) were measured. We selected using a systematic sampling method and collected data by using a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 25.0. The predictors of intention to practice solid waste management were identified using a multivariable linear regression model. A P-value of less than 5% was considered to declare a significant association.
RESULTS: The findings demonstrated that intention to practice solid waste management explained 86% of the variance explained by all predictors. The perceived behavioral control construct had the greatest impact on households' behavioral intentions to comply with solid waste management practice (β = 0.16; CI (0.14, 0.18), followed by attitude (β = 0.15; CI (0.11, 0.21) and subjective norms (β = 0.12; CI (0.06, 0.17).
CONCLUSION: Our study also found that intention has a substantial influence on the behavior of solid waste management practices. Therefore, there is a need to enhance service utilization for solid waste management and to improve outdoor solid waste dropping behavior through door-to-door collection services by municipality. Furthermore, further longitudinal research should be done through intervention mapping.

Introduction

Solid waste management (SWM) in an urban area is a complex activity that involves the collection, transportation, recycling, resource recovery, and disposal of solid waste generated in an urban area [1]. Municipal solid waste is made up of various wastes generated by households and institutions such as schools, hospitals, slaughterhouses, and public restrooms [2]. Municipal waste is not well managed in developing countries due to the alarmingly increasing solid waste production, which is more than the capacity of the cities and municipalities. It was reported that waste collection rates are often lower than 70% in low-income countries, and more than 50% of the collected waste is often disposed of through uncontrolled land filling [3].

Globally, 2.6 billion people, or 39% of the world’s population, do not have access to better sanitation [4, 5]. About 1.1 billion people continue to practice inappropriate solid waste management. In most developing countries, open, unregulated dumps are still the most common means of waste disposal. Many health-related problems result from improper waste management in urban areas [6, 7]. Environmental phenomena such as water, soil, and air pollution have been blamed on insufficient solid waste management [7]. It may also have a negative impact on one’s health, the climate, and finances. The results of a report linking 22 diseases to poor solid waste management have been released by the US Public Health Service. Every year, 1.5 people die as a result of the inability to address these issues [8]. Municipal waste is poorly managed in developing countries due to alarmingly increasing solid waste production that exceeds the capacity of cities and municipalities. According to studies, waste collection rates in low-income countries are often below 70%, and more than half of the waste generated is disposed of by unregulated land filling [9, 10].

Since Ethiopia is one of the developing countries, the urban areas have a problem with solid waste management, which has its own negative impact on the environment. For instance, the study conducted on the assessment of Addis Ababa city revealed that improper and insufficient solid waste management is causing serious environmental problems and its management and associated environmental impacts are worthy of intention [10]. Ethiopia is one of the low-income countries facing the consequences of improper solid waste management. It was reported that about 20 to 30% of the waste generated in Addis Ababa, the capital city, remains uncollected [11]. However, rapid growth of the urban population and solid waste management are some of the main challenging problems for developing countries, and the waste disposal habits of the community cause the deterioration of the environment [6, 8]. Similarly, the study found that solid waste management activities at the household level in Wolaita Sodo town were lacking in terms of expressing the benefits of solid waste management practices, and that spatial coverage was hampered by a slew of serious issues [12].

Butajira is an old town with many public and private hospitals, health centers, industries, hotels, and small-scale enterprises where lots of solid waste is generated. The town municipality is mainly responsible for solid waste management in the town as there is no private organization involved in such tasks. There is no communal solid waste container deployed in different sites of the town. As a result, solid waste produced by every household is collected on the roadside. Even though solid waste management is supposed to be one of the critical public problems in Butajira, there was no study done.

Thus, it is critical to recognize the main determinants of behavior in order to modify human behavior since this can be strengthened or changed if the correct determinants that formulate particular behavior are identified [12, 13]. Tested theories are very important in explaining the healthy behaviors of individuals and communities and are used to develop evidence-based educational programs that can help individuals comply with certain behaviors [14, 15]. Thus, the current study uses the theory of planned behavior to assess the intention of solid waste management. The model was built with direct and indirect measurements. The direct measurements are attitude, normative beliefs, and perceived behavioral control. The model is apparent that it is open to the inclusion of other variables if they increase the predictive utility of the model [16]. However, as it has been criticized by many scholars in hypertension, blood donation and many more researches, the theory of planned behavior studies with results conflicting with TPB assumptions (e.g., null correlations between variables hypothesized to be highly related) rarely question the validity of the theory, but instead consider other explanations such as the operationalization of their study measures. Others have also questioned whether the hypotheses derived from the model are open to empirical falsification or whether they are essentially common-sense statements which cannot be falsified [16, 17]. In parallel speaking, since intention is the best and immediate predictor of behavior (solid waste management), normative beliefs and more perceived behavioral control improvements are still a day away from being established in Ethiopia and the study area in particular. That is why the TPB was applied to households to look into the factors influencing the intention of the community at household level waste management [14-17]. Therefore, this study aims to determine the intention and its predictors to comply with solid waste management practice among households in Butajira Town in Ethiopia using the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).

Research hypothesis

There is a significant relationship between the TPB constructs (attitude, subjective norm, and Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) and the households’ intentions to comply with solid waste management practices.

Materials and methods

Study area and period

The study was conducted in Butajira town, in the Southern Nation’s Nationalities and Peoples Region of Ethiopia, from June 1 to 30, 2020. It is 90 kilometers east of Wolkite town and 130 kilometers south of Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa. The rainy season lasts from June to October, with the rest of the year being mostly dry. The town has a total area of 9 km2 and is administratively divided into 5 kebeles. According to the Butajira town health department’s estimated population for 2019, the town had a total population of 52,962 and households of 10,808. Rural to urban migration, in addition to natural growth, led to the town’s high population growth rate.

Study design and populations

A community-based cross-sectional study preceded by elicitation study was conducted to assess intention to comply with solid waste management practice among households in Butajira Town in Ethiopia using the TPB. Since the study uses the theory TPB as a conceptual framework, elicitation study was conducted before proceeding to the main study in order to identify salient beliefs in the study population. According to TPB’s recommendation, ten to twenty individuals from a given population were chosen to conduct an elicitation study; we purposefully chose 15 households, of which 12 participated in the elicitation interviews. Participants were given a description of the behavior in terms of target, action, context, and time and were asked a series of open-ended questions to elicit beliefs and each in-depth interview lasted between 45–60 minutes.

Elicitation study

It was done to elicit important psychographic beliefs regarding the intention to perform particular behavior (i.e. intention to comply with solid waste management practice in this case), the significant others and control beliefs for this intention. Purposive sampling was used to select the sample of 15 households for the elicitation study because it comes before the main study. The sample of 12 households was determined due to data saturation after the 10th respondent when a similar trend of answers started to appear, with no new data emerging and inferences regarding the topic being confirmed. This involves simultaneously collecting and analyzing data before deciding which data to collect next, who to interview next, and how many participants need to be included. In the present study, 12 participants (households) participated in the elicitation interviews.

Sample size and sampling procedures

Then, the sample size for the main study was determined using a single population proportion formula with a confidence interval of 95% and a margin of error (d) of 5%. The estimate of predicted variance in intention to SWM practice was taken to be 50% since there was no evidence of the value of P on similar issue of the current study area) (p = 50%). Finally, to account for contingencies such as non-response or recording error, the sample size was increased by 10%, resulting in 384 X 10/100 + 384 = 422. The total sample size (422 people) was distributed proportionally based on the number of households in each kebele. Then, from each kebele, sample households were chosen using a systematic random sampling method. The interval value (K) was calculated for selected kebeles by dividing the total number of households of each selected kebele to the proportional sample size of the kebele. The initial household to be interviewed was selected randomly through a lottery method. If the selected housing units were changed to non-residential houses or just demolished for other purposes, the next housing which served as a residential house was selected.

Measurement, variables and operation definitions

The outcome of this study is the intention to comply with solid waste management practices. Intention to solid waste management practice was measured by using three items (1. I intend to implement a sustainable “solid waste management practice in the households, for the next 12 months, 2. I am determined to implement a sustainable “solid waste management practice in the households, for the next 12 months” and I have decided to implement a sustainable “solid waste management practice in the households, for the next 12 months”) on semantic differential scales (SDS). The composite score was done by summing up all the three items. The benefit/outcome of implementing solid waste management practice activity in the next 12 months was measured using four items on semantic differential scales (SDS) on bipolar adjectives (words with opposite meaning). Then, a composite score of direct attitude was obtained by summing up all the four items. Eight items were used to measure behavioral belief with responses ranging from unlikely at all (-3) to very likely (3). Evaluation of solid waste management practice belief was measured by asking participants to evaluate eight salient consequences accruing from implementing solid waste management practice. Each behavioral belief was multiplied by the outcome evaluation score to generate a new variable (indirect attitude) representing the weighted score for each behavioral belief. A composite score of an indirect attitude was obtained by summing up all the eight products of behavioral belief and outcome evaluation. Three semantic differential scales (SDS) items were used to measure direct subjective solid waste management practice norm. A composite score of the direct subjective norm was obtained by summing up all the three items. To assess the indirect subjective norm toward solid waste management practice, participants were asked to complete five Likert scale items indicating how much they thought their family, neighbors, community volunteers, politicians/conservatives, and health professionals would appreciate their solid waste management practice implementation. Similarly, we weighted each normative belief by the score for motivation to comply with belief. Then; the composite scores of indirect subjective norm were created by summing up of the weighted beliefs. The direct measure of perceived behavioral control was measured by using six items on bipolar differential scales. A composite score of direct perceived behavioral control was obtained by summing up all the six items. Five control belief items were used to measure indirect perceived behavioral control ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree scale and perceived power of control was measured using five items on the bipolar Likert scale ranging from very difficult to very easier scored on the −3 to + 3 scale response format. The control belief items were multiplied by those of perceived power of control of the beliefs. The composite score of indirect perceived behavioral control was calculated by summing these product scores together. Higher scores indicate a greater value for all measured T constructs toward the implementation of solid waste management practice in all cases. Then, each construct was operationalized as follows: Intention to solid waste management practice was operationally defined by items on a continuous measurement scale with a range of-9 to 9. The score was derived by calculating the sum total of questions 50, 51, and 52 from the questionnaire. The survey responses were coded as follows: 3 = extremely disagree; 2 = quite disagree; 1 = slightly disagree; 0 = neutral; 1 = slightly agree; 2 = quite agree; 3 = extremely agree. Thus, higher positive scores indicate a higher intention to practice solid waste management, while lower positive scores indicate a lower intention to practice solid waste management. Attitude toward solid waste management practice was operationally defined from the responses to items on a continuous measurement scale with a range of-12 to 12. Response choices to the survey questions were recorded using a 7-point scale and coded as-3 = extremely bad;-2 = quite bad;-1 = slightly bad; 0 = neutral; 1 = slightly good; 2 = quite good; 3 = extremely good. Higher positive scores would indicate a positive attitude toward the intention of engaging in the targeted solid waste management practice. Lower scores would indicate a less positive attitude. Items on a continuous measurement scale with scores ranging from -9 to 9 were used to operationally define the subjective norm. Response choices to the survey questions were coded as-3 = extremely disapprove;-2 = quite disapprove;-1 = slightly disapprove; 0 = neutral; 1 = slightly approve; 2 = quite approve; 3 = extremely approve. Higher positive scores would be associated with high social pressure/expectation in relation to the intention to engage in solid waste management practice. Lower scores would indicate little or no social pressure/expectation. Perceived behavioral control effects on solid waste management practice, as measured by items on a continuous measurement scale ranging from -18 to 18. The survey responses were coded as follows: 3 = extremely disagree; 2 = quite disagree; 1 = slightly disagree; 0 = neutral; 1 = slightly agree; 2 = quite agree; 3 = extremely agree. Higher positive scores would be associated with a strong belief in one’s ability to perform or exert control over the behavior; influencing one’s intention to engage in solid waste management practice. Normative control beliefs toward complying with the solid waste management practice and a subjective norm about compliance was operationally defined by items on a continuous measurement scale with a range of-45 to 45. Higher positive scores would be associated with high social pressure/expectation related to intention to comply with the solid waste management practice and subjective norms about compliance. Waste segregation is the sorting and separation of waste types to facilitate recycling and correct onward disposal (dividing waste into dry and wet). Home compositing is the process of using household waste to make compost at home. In other words, composting is the biological decomposition of organic waste by recycling food and other organic materials. Waste collection is a part of the process of waste management in order to transfer solid waste from the point of use and disposal to the point of treatment or landfill (recycling, incineration).

Data collection procedure and quality control

The questionnaire was initially developed in English by reviewing available literatures and guidelines [14-19] and translated to Amharic, and then back-translated to English by another person to maintain its consistency and modified based on the result of elicitation study. The training was given to data collectors and supervisors. Before the actual data collection, a questionnaire was pre-tested on 5% of the final sample size to test the clarity of the data collecting tools and to ensure respondent understanding of the questionnaire and the discrepancies was corrected and managed accordingly. Supervisors and investigators performed immediate supervision by the time of data collection to cross-check consistency, accuracy, and completeness of the collected data on daily basis. In addition to constructs of TPB, the questionnaire covered socio-demographic information.

Data entry, processing and analysis

All collected data was entered into Epi-data version 3.1 and exported to SPSS version 25.0 for analysis. Descriptive analysis was used to see frequency distribution, mean and standard deviation. Correlation analysis was done between indirect and direct TPB variables to see the correlation between them. Multiple linear regression analysis was computed to test the strength and direction of association between the dependent variable and independent variables. First, bivariate regression analysis was employed. Then, multivariate regression analysis was applied following bivariate analysis with a p-value of < 0.25. An unstandardized β coefficient was used to interpret the effect of predictors on the intention of solid waste management practice. β is unstandardized coefficients which means original units besides the slope and tell if the independent variable is a significant predictor of the dependent variable. Beta is a standardized coefficient between -1 to +1 in range and show the strength of the prediction. Unlike standardized coefficients, which are normalized unit-less coefficients, an unstandardized coefficient has units and a ’real life’ scale. An unstandardized coefficient represents the amount of change in a dependent variable intention to solid waste management due to a change of 1 unit of independent variable (socio-demographic variables and others). In other words; unstandardized coefficients are obtained after running a regression model on variables measured in their original scales. Standardized coefficients are obtained after running a regression model on standardized variables (i.e. rescaled variables that have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1). R2 was used for the ability of explanatory variables to explain dependent variables. Multicollinearity assumptions were tested by the variance inflation factor (VIF) and the value of all variables was below ten. Similarly, the tolerance value of all variables was above 0.10. Variables with a p-value of less than 0.05 at 95% confidence intervals were considered as statistically significant.

Ethical considerations and informed consent

We obtained ethical clearance from Wachemo University School of Graduate Studies on 18 May 2020 (Ref. no: WCU/SGS/1173/12). On 19 June, 2020, a written permission from the Butajira town health office was obtained, and a support letter was sent to all selected kebele (Ref. no: B/T/O/2234/2012). The right to self–determination and autonomy of all participants was respected. Thus, oral consent was obtained from all the respondents after explaining of the purpose of the study, risk/discomfort, benefits to the subject, and confidentiality of records, right to refuse participation and terminate participation in the study at any time. The informed verbal consent was obtained from the respondents after explaining the purpose of study. The study subjects had a right to withdraw at any time from the study. After data collection, a handbook on family health package was disseminated for each study participant by data collectors after orienting its purpose. The participants were assured of confidentiality with regard to all information acquired.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of participants

A total of 422 participants have participated with a response rate of 100%. Most of them (63.7%) were females and the participants’ age ranged from 18 to 65 years. The mean age of participants was 31 years. Nearly 46% were orthodox Christian in religion and 58.80% were Gurhage in ethnicity (Table 1).

Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of participants Butajira town, Southern Ethiopia (N = 422).

Variable	Categories	Frequency	Percent (%)
Age	18–25 Years	120	28.4
	26–35 Years	151	35.8
	36–45 Years	101	23.9
	above 45 Years	50	11.8
	Total	422	100.0
Gender	Male	153	36.3
	Female	269	63.7
	Total	422	100.0
Ethnicity	Gurhage	248	58.8
	Amara	74	17.5
	Siltie	36	8.5
	Oromo	45	10.7
	Others	19	4.5
	Total	422	100.0
The family size of households	1–3 Members	116	27.5
	4–6 Members	192	45.5
	7–8 Members	77	18.2
	Above 8	37	8.8
	Total	422	100.0
Religion	Orthodox	196	46.4
	Muslim	173	41.0
	Protestant	30	7.1
	Catholic	23	5.5
	Total	422	100.0
Educational status	Unable to read and write	100	23.7
	Primary education (grade 1–8)	165	39.1
	Secondary education (grade 9–10)	69	16.4
	Preparatory education (grade 11–12)	39	9.2
	Diploma	32	7.6
	1st degree	12	2.8
	2nd degree	5	1.2
	Total	422	100.0
Marital status	Married	266	63.0
	Single	117	27.7
	Widowed	22	5.2
	Divorced	17	4.1
	Total	422	100.0
Occupation of the participants	Daily laborer	79	18.7
	Farmer	7	1.7
	Merchant	217	51.4
	Students	46	10.9
	Gov’t employee	37	8.8
	Others	36	8.5
	Total	422	100.0

Correlation between intention and constructs of theory of planned behavior

To explore the association between dependent and independent variables, all the necessary bivariate analysis was done using Pearson correlation. The Pearson’s correlation coefficients showed that all the direct measures of the TPB except subjective norm were significantly and positively correlated with each other and with their respective indirect measures. From Table 2, the highest and lowest positive correlation was observed between intention and perceived behavioral control (r = 0.85, p < 0.001), and between intention and subjective norm (r = 0.29, p < 0.001), respectively. Most importantly, the indirect measures of attitude and perceived behavioral control were positively and significantly correlated with the corresponding direct measures. Finally, indirect measures of both attitude and perceived behavioral control were positively and significantly correlated with each other. The highest inter-indirect measure correlation was observed between indirect attitude and indirect perceived behavioral control (r = 0.38, p <0.001). The mean score of direct attitude, subjective norm and PBC were 7.94 (SD = 4.11), 5.48 (SD = 2.93) and 3.30 (SD = 12.63) respectively and intention with a mean score of 5.14 (SD = 4.21). There was a higher attitude score of 7.94 (SD = 4.11) towards solid waste management practice among households. For the PBC subscale, the participants’ scores were at a moderate level (mean = 3.30 (SD = 12.63), with the relatively higher SD value suggesting limited consensus of opinion (Table 2).

Table 2

Descriptive statistics and correlations of TPB constructs among households of Butajira town, Southern Ethiopia, 2020 (N = 422).

TPB Constructs	Behavioral Intention	Attitude (Direct)	Attitude (Indirect)	SN (Direct)	SN(Indirect)	PBC (Direct)	PBC (Indirect)	Scale Mean	Scale SD
Behavioral Intention	1							5.14	4.21
Attitude (Direct)	0.65**	1						7.94	4.11
Attitude (Indirect)	0.67**	0.71**	1					28.37	13.66
Subjective norm (Direct)	0.29**	0.11*	0.16**	1				5.48	2.93
Subjective norm (Indirect)	0.30**	0.26**	0.18*	0.09	1			13.08	9.36
PBC (Direct)	0.85**	0.62**	0.64**	0.21**	0.29**	1		3.30	12.63
PBC (Indirect)	0.55**	0.32**	0.38**	0.14**	0.16**	0.40**	1	9.56	12.25

Notes: **p < .001

*p < .05

Magnitude and predictors associated with intention to solid waste management practice

Prior to the analysis, the assumptions of linear regression were checked. Then simple linear regression was performed to assess the association of each independent variable with the intention of solid waste management practice at a 95% confidence interval. Variables which were significant in simple linear regression were entered into multiple linear regressions for further statistical significance. Socio-demographic variables (age, sex, marital status and occupation) and all direct measures of theory of TPB variables were candidates for multiple linear regression models.

Then, multiple linear regressions were performed, and variables from the first TPB, such as direct attitude, direct subjective norm, and direct perceived behavioral control, were included in the regression. These variables explain the model 76.0%. Then socio-demographic variables (age, sex, marital status and occupation) of solid waste management practice were added to the theory constructs and explained the model 86%. The standardized regression coefficients, perceived behavioral control was found to be the best factor (β = 0.16; CI (0.14, 0.18) followed by attitude (β = 0.15; CI (0.11, 0.21). This means that a unit positive change in a household’s perception of their ability to control circumstances that prevent them from implementing solid waste management practices increases the intention to implement solid waste management practices by 16% while other conditions remain constant. This finding was also supported by an elicitation study finding. One of the participants agreed that I think that support and encouragement would enable me to implement a solid waste management practice in the households, for the next 12 months. Similarly, a unit positive change in a household’s attitude toward the benefits of implementing a solid waste management practice increases the individual’s intention to implement it by 15% if all other factors remain constant.

This finding is supported by the findings of an elicitation study, in which one of the participants stated that solid waste management practice will help in getting a healthier life or that solid waste management practice contributes to preventing death due to poor waste management. This finding is likely to increase the intention of solid waste management practice. In contrast, a negative attitude expressed by one of the participants, such as I believe solid waste management practice is a potential source of disease, will eventually lead to a lower likelihood of solid waste management practice intention. Also, households who perceive significant others will approve of their implementing solid waste management practice will have a 12% higher intention to implement solid waste management practice than their counter parts. In this study, subjective norms was found to be the least significant factor associated with intention to solid waste management practice implement (β = 0.12; CI (0.06, 0.17). This finding was also supported by the findings of the elicitation study, with one of the participants agreeing, "I believe my neighbor wants me to engage in solid waste management practice, and I believe my family will be pleased to know I am practicing solid waste management activity." Such approval perception from a significant referent will help solid waste management practice. In the same way, standardized regression coefficients of socio-demographic variables (age above 46 years, occupation, farmer and students) were found to be a significant factor (Table 3).

Table 3

Multiple linear regression of intention to solid waste management practice and its predictors among households of Butajira town, Southern Ethiopia, 2020 (N = 422).

Variable		Unstandardized B	Standardized β	t-value	Sig.	95% CI for B
Constants		2.99		7.37	0.00	[2.19, 3.79]
Age	26–35 years (ref.)
	18–25 years	-0.48	-0.05	-1.40	0.16	[-1.15, 0.19]
	36–45 years	-0.35	-0.04	-1.14	0.25	[-0.94, 0.25]
	Above 46 years	0.89	0.07	2.52	0.01	[0.19, 1.59]*
Sex	Male (ref.)
	Female	-0.38	-0.04	-1.66	0.10	[-0.82, 0.07]
Marital status	Married (ref.)
	Single	-3.12	-0.33	-10.36	0.00	[-3.72, -2.53]
	Widowed	-0.59	-0.03	-1.12	0.26	[-1.61, 0.44]
	Divorced	-0.03	-0.01	-0.07	0.94	[-0.99, 0.92]
Occupation	Merchants(ref.)
	Daily laborer	0.27	0.03	0.87	0.39	[-0.34, 0.87]
	Farmer	2.22	0.07	3.43	0.00	[0.95, 3.49]*
	Students	1.07	0.08	3.14	0.00	[0.40, 1.74]*
	Gov’t employee	0.60	0.04	1.79	0.07	[-0.06, 1.26]
	Others	-0.48	-0.03	-1.34	0.18	[-1.18, 0.23]
Direct attitude		0.15	0.15	6.27	0.00	[0.11, 0.21]*
Direct SN		0.12	0.10	4.15	0.00	[0.06, 0.17]*
Direct PBC		0.16	0.48	14.61	0.00	[0.14, 0.18]*

Notes: t-value > = 1.96 and P< 0.05 are Significant (*), ref. = reference

Further analysis revealed that the indirect measures of the theory constructs probed the parameter estimates, behavioral beliefs→Attitude (Standardized Coefficient of Beta = 0.71; p < 0.05), show that aggregated behavioral beliefs have a significant influence in predicting attitude to comply with the solid waste management practice. Similarly, aggregated control beliefs have a significant influence in predicting perceived behavioral control to comply with the solid waste management practice, control beliefs → perceived behavioral control (Standardized Coefficient of Beta = 0.40; p < 0.05). The aggregated normative beliefs show that normative beliefs → subjective norms (Standardized Coefficient of Beta = 0.09; p > 0.05) is not statistically significant in predicting subjective norm to comply with the solid waste management practice. Thus, it could be concluded that the belief constructs on the related domains could be used to explain the attitudes and perceived behavioral controls toward solid waste management practice for Butajira town households. Since the relationships were significant between the beliefs on the related attributes and attitudes, and perceived behavioral control, a direct pathway exists among those variables. Also, by considering the significant contributions that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control made on behavioral intentions, the following path model could be displayed in the present study.

R2 values of 0.25, 0.50 and 0.70 can be interpreted as weak, moderate and substantial, respectively. Overall, the R2 value of behavioral intention (R2 = 0.86) indicates that the substantial amount of variance in solid waste management practice can be explained with perceived behavioral control, attitude and subjective norm. This finding suggests that the TPB can explain a significant amount of the behavioral intention to comply with solid waste management practice within the town environment. In general, the variance explained by the intention to solid waste management practice from all predictors was 86%. Findings show that attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control have a direct positive effect on intention towards solid waste management practice. The indirect measures of the theory constructs probed the behavioral and control beliefs have a significant influence in predicting attitude and perceived behavioral control respectively, to comply with the solid waste management practice. Fig 1 shows standard path coefficients’ of theory of planned behavior variables which is significant at p<0.05: (i.e IATT = Indirect Attitude; ISN = Indirect Subjective Norms; IPBC = Indirect Perceived Behavioral Control). (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Standardized path coefficient of theory of planned behavior variables (significant at p<0.05).

IATT = indirect Attitude; ISN = indirect Subjective norm; IPBC = indirect perceived behavioral control.

Discussion

The model explained 86% of the households’ intentions to comply with solid waste management practices. This finding is consistent with previous studies conducted in Ethiopia and abroad [13, 20], which found that the consequences of disposing of recyclable materials in separate waste bins have a significant direct relationship with intention. Correspondingly, this finding is higher than the study conducted in Bristol city (UK) and China [20-22]. This difference may be due to the study population, as those who visit health institutions may have a higher chance of getting access to information than their counter parts. The recent strong efforts for disease prevention and control programs being done by the Ethiopian government might have made a contribution to this difference. In contrast, the results from Bule Hora Town were not supported by the current study [16], which found that solid waste management practice consequences had a negative result on the household’s intention to engage in waste management activities.

The result of our finding revealed that there is strong interplay between direct subjective norm and intention to solid waste management practice. Previous studies from Ethiopia, China and Cambodia also documented similar findings [15, 22, 23]. This suggests that decisions made in this context do not only concern the participants but also family, neighbors, health professionals and community volunteers. The current study found that eligible individuals are more likely to participate in this activity if their significant others are involved in solid waste management practice. This finding is also consistent with a previous study conducted in Taiwan [24], which found that subjective norms had a positive and significant influence on waste reduction intentions.

Previous research in China-case studies of Hangzhou, Ghana, and Canada discovered that the easier it is to recycle, the more likely it is to engage in a positive attitude [6, 21, 25], which is similar to the current study that revealed a strong interplay between perceived behavioral control and intention. This is also similar to the assumption TPB that suggests encouraging individuals to the aim of practicing a given behavior should involve consideration of factors that are under their control. That is, those individuals who are able to control their fear of causing a potential source of disease and taking up too much time as a result of implementing solid waste management practices, which may lead to an increase in their intention to implement solid waste management practices. The current study also revealed that households do not agree on waste management practices that take up too much time and waste time. This result is consistent with previous study in Indonesia [7] which discovered that attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control all are influencing attitude. This shows that having knowledge of solid waste management practice can increase the perceived behavioral control towards intention. This is also consistent with Ghana’s study [6] where the knowledge of knowing how to solid waste management practice significant towards is perceived behavioral control and correlated with intention.

This study found that providing households with recycling facilities and local collections holds great promise for improving households’ intention to recycle. The finding is consistent with the study conducted in Nigeria [26]. Also, the study conducted in the Somalia Region in Ethiopia [13] shows that lack of resources and technical knowledge could be one of the factors that hinder waste management activities.

The results of the present study also showed that attitude is the strong predictor towards solid waste management practice among the households in Butajira town. This is consistent with studies conducted in Kenya, Nigeria, Malaysia and China [9, 22, 26, 27]. This might be due to those individuals who believed that solid waste management practice could lead a healthier life, prevent death related to poor waste management, prevent the risk of infection, promote the quality of the urban environment were more likely to have a favorable attitude and then more intended to solid waste management practice. This finding is also consistent with previous studies such as the study conducted in Karan District, Mogadishu, Somalia [28], which stated that environmental knowledge and attitudes can influence perception of households their awareness and susceptibility to the community-based project. This is similar to the assumption of TPB that states informing and raising awareness about a certain behavior (environmental issues), as well as proper solid waste management, are critical to the success of the goal of recycling household waste.

The present study revealed that external variables such as most socio-demographic variables had no significant effect on intention to solid waste management practice. This finding is consistent with a previous study conducted in Kenya [9], which stated that no significant relationship was found between household waste management practices and socio demographic characteristics. Also, the study conducted in Phnom Penh, Cambodia [23] showed that the influence of external factors was much smaller. Generally, the current study demonstrated that the TPB can explain a significant amount of behavioral intention compliance with solid waste management practice. This is similar to studies of various research scholars [20, 22].

As a limitation, firstly, the findings of the study reveal that the theory constructs significantly influences household waste management practice. This might not be the same as actual behavior. Secondly, the findings of the research are limited to urban communities (i.e. Butajira town). This may limit its applicability to rural areas like Southern Ethiopia. Thirdly, the present study did not include monetary incentive and moral obligation as predictors of household waste separation intention. Lastly, the cross-sectional design does not determine causality; this may result in a chicken-egg dilemma.

Conclusion

The study revealed that intention has a substantial influence on the behavior of solid waste management practice. The study also found that the behavioral intention to solid waste management practice was a function of the TPB psychographic variables; attitude, perceived social pressure and perceived behavioral control. Therefore, behavior change interventions should focus on increasing knowledge, perceived power that enable households to evaluate their control belief positively and empower them to develop ability against social norms that could compete with solid waste management practice and build an attitude that supports the behavior. Further study employing longitudinal design should be conducted to see the translation of behavioral intention to the actual behavior there by establishing a cause-effect relationship.

Limitation of the study

Causal inferences can never be drawn out of the findings since the study is a cross-sectional one. During interview, there may be a social desirability bias.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Nov 2021

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gabriel Ling, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

NO

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear author,

Thank you for your submission. The manuscript focuses on an interesting topic. However, the main issues with this manuscript are; (1) What is the main contribution of this study to the body of knowledge?, contextual contribution is not acceptable. (2) Why the old theory of planned behavior (TPB) was used instead of the new TPB? (3) Methodology part is not clear. Details of the comments as per attachment.

Reviewer #2: It is an interesting work in identifying the underlying factors which can influence the society behavior towards a better waste management practices. The methodology could be a bit unclear, which can require some definitions on the variables involved and some elaborations on the regression analysis. Some suggestions:

(1) Kindly include line number and section numbers for easier referencing, if applicable.

(2) Introduction: the literature review can be further enriched to highlight previous works and their observations with similar or different approaches, which can then better highlight the research gap and objective of the current work.

(3) Introduction: would be good to define what is included under the solid waste management activities/practices to be complied with? e.g. waste segregation, recycling or home composting? Is there any specific regulation/policy on waste management practices by the country/city?

(4) Materials and Methods: measurement definitions: what are the 3 items and 4 items etc referring too? suggest can elaborate briefly or in brackets for further clarity. This section is quite lengthy. Kindly consider breaking into shorter paragraphs and with a flowchart diagram showing the progression of scoring, if applicable.

(5) Materials and Methods: variables definitions: suggest that the variables can be further elaborated and defined. e.g. what does it mean or is included under indirect attitude?

(6) Materials and Methods: data entry and analysis: why does a p-value of less than 0.25 was chosen? As co-linearity among parameters could pose some issues for regression analysis, is there any approaches/strategies in addressing this?

(7) Results : pg 10: the r= 0.29 or 0.38 seems not to be a high correlation strength... Is there some mechanisms/literature to discuss further on the relationship?

(8) Results: pg 16: some of the observations were reported by only 1 participants. Would be good also if the discussion can be added on with more representative observations.

(9) Discussions: if any sensitivity analysis considered or to be considered that might affect the observations ?

(10) table 3 pg 18: where does 0.71 derived from as it was not observed in table 3? why does the variable with beta 0.09 was chosen as it was stated as not significant in the text? Would be good to discuss/clarify the selection of variables for the final analysis.

Reviewer #3: The article takes a systematic random sampling method to select a research sample with size of 442, and ensure that the statistics to obey normal distribution. The results of data analysis are consistent with the conclusions of research. That is, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control have a significant effect on the intention of solid waste management practice. In the descriptive statistical analysis of the sample, the manuscript describes the distribution of socio-demographic characteristics of participants, and also analyzes the association between research variables by Pearson correlation. Finally, this article uses linear regression model to analyze the effects of direct and indirect attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavior control on the intent of implementing solid waste management practices. Overall, the study further expanded the field of research in the field of solid waste and focus on a micro-subject (family or individual). But there are some problems as following.

In the section of Introduction, the authors elaborated on the importance of studying the practical problems of household solid waste management and the rationality of choosing the theory of planned behavior as the theoretical basis for the study. However, it is also important to illustrate the current status of municipal solid waste management in Ethiopia through statistical data, which can help readers understand why Ethiopian cities can be used as research objects. In addition, it is recommended to elaborate on the reasons for choosing Butajira Town as the specific research area in the Study area and period section.

In the section of Study design and populations, the authors use elicitation study to identify salient beliefs in the research population. This is reasonable, but the selection process of the research objects of the elicitation study should be explained.

In the section of Ethical considerations and informed consent, the authors obtained the permission from the Butajira health office on June 7, 2012, but the research period is from June 1 to 30, 2020. Please confirm that this time of permission is correct. Too long a time interval will cause confusion, and it is recommended to delete the content of permission.

Attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control are the three important elements of the theory of planned behavior. For this study, not only must clearly define these three elements but also the meaning of intention variables must be clearly explained. In the section of Measurement, variables and operation definitions, the authors use three items on the Semantic Difference Scale to measure the intention of the solid waste management practice, but fails to explain the content of the items in the scale, which leads to understanding the meaning of variables difficultly. Similarly, although the authors divided attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavior control into two categories of direct and indirect, they did not present the content of the relevant items in the scale on the manuscript. In order to understand the meaning of the variables easily, it is recommended to select appropriate items in the scale to explain the variable.

In the section of Result, the authors use frequency and percentage to show the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample due to the existence of categorical variables. This processing method is reasonable. However, if there are relevant statistical data, the socio-demographic characteristics between the sample and the population should be compared to further prove the representativeness of the sample.

In the descriptive statistics and correlation analysis in Table 2, all the direct measures of the TPB except subjective norm were significantly and positively correlated with each other and with their respective indirect measures. It is necessary to explain why there is no correlation between the direct and indirect measures of subjective norms.

In the latter part of Result section, the authors use multiple linear regression to test the influence of direct attitudes, direct subjective norms and direct perceptual behavior control on the family's intention to implement solid waste management practice. However, in the subsequent further analysis, the results shown in Figure 1 need to analyze the direct impact of IATT, ISN, and IPBC on the household's intention to implement solid waste management practice. For example, in addition to affecting Attitude and then Intention, IATT may have a direct and significant positive impact on Intention.

In the Discussion section, the authors mentioned that cross-sectional design cannot determine causality. To solve this problem, in addition to designing a longitudinal study, it is also possible to build a causal diagram based on previous research literature to identify the causal relationship between variables.

Finally, the authors should state their research hypothesis in the appropriate place of the manuscript.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PLOS nov 2021.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

3 Jan 2022

Date 27 December, 2020

Dear Academic Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and interest in the publication of the manuscript. Your comments have improved the quality of our manuscript and almost all the comments are incorporated into the current manuscript. The "Revised Manuscript with Track Changes" will show how much we improved our manuscript as per your comment.

We are pleased to have an opportunity to revise our manuscript, entitled "Intention to Comply with Solid Waste Management Practices among Households in Butajira Town, Southern Ethiopia Using the Theory of Planned Behavior." [PONE-D-21-28599]. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully considered the editors' and reviewers’ comments and suggestions. As instructed, we have attempted to succinctly explain the changes made in reaction to all comments. We reply to each comment in point-by-point fashion. We have color-coded the revised manuscript as text. The responses to the concerns raised by the editor and reviewer are below and are italic coded as follows. The editor’s and reviewers’ comments were very helpful overall, and we are appreciative of such constructive feedback on our original submission. After addressing the issues raised, we feel the quality of the paper has greatly improved.

Note: Datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Responses to Editor

Q##: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements,

Response: Thank you for the comment. We corrected the manuscript in order to meet PLOS ONE's style requirements.

Q##: Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire

Response: We thank you so much for your comments and refining our manuscript for publication. Both English and Amharic version questionnaire is added.

Q##: Please provide additional details regarding participant consent.

Response: Consent form is there in the manuscript and added as supplementary materials too.

Q##: Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study.

Response: Elaborated in the text of manuscript where appropriate.

Responses to Reviewer #1

Thank you for your valuable comments and interest on our manuscript for publication. Your comments were incorporated into the revised manuscript and clarified one by one.

Q##: What is the main contribution of this study to the body of knowledge? contextual contribution is not acceptable.

Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. The outcome of this study will provide to the Federal Ministry of Health and other health organizations with a comprehensive understanding and strategies on the households’ behavioural intentions to be engaged in the solid waste management practice. The guiding principles extracted from the findings will be useful for researchers, policy-makers, practitioners and other public health experts in Solid Waste Management system.

Responses to reviewer #2:

Thank you very much for your comments and refining our manuscript for publication. Your comments were incorporated into the revised manuscript and clarified one by one.

Q##: Methodology could be a bit unclear. Introduction: would be good to define what is included under the solid waste management activities/practices to be complied with? e.g. waste segregation, recycling or home composting? Is there any specific regulation/policy on waste management practices by the country/city?

Response: Corrected. Thank you for the valuable comment.

Q##: Materials and Methods: measurement definitions: what are the 3 items and 4 items etc referring too? Suggest can elaborate briefly or in brackets for further clarity. This section is quite lengthy. Kindly consider breaking into shorter paragraphs and with a flowchart diagram showing the progression of scoring, if applicable.

Response: We thank you so much for the valuable comment. Since the constructs of theory of planned behaviour are scale variables, it is mandatory to use some items or parameters that can measure the constructs of theory of planned behaviour. So, these items refer some parameters that were used to measure the constructs.

Q##: Materials and Methods: variables definitions: suggest that the variables can be further elaborated and defined. e.g. what does it mean or is included under indirect attitude?

Response: Thanks for the comment. Attitude measurement is an attempt to convert observations of a person's behaviour toward a referent into an index representing the presence, strength, and direction of the attitude presumed to underlie the behaviour. Direct methods to measure attitude are those in which the respondents are either informed that their attitudes are being measured or are made aware of it by the nature of the attitude measurement technique. It is assumed that the respondent and the researcher view the experimental task similarly and have attached the same meaning and significance to the response that is requested. In contrast to the direct methods, indirect methods to measure attitude yield responses that are not taken literally. Rather, the respondent's performance on an overt and seemingly straightforward objective task is thought to unconsciously reveal latent psychosocial constructs that are interpreted as attitude.

Q##: Materials and Methods: data entry and analysis: why does a p-value of less than 0.25 was chosen? As co-linearity among parameters could pose some issues for regression analysis, is there any approaches/strategies in addressing this?

Response: We incorporated your valuable comment in the current manuscript. Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) measures the extent to which multi-collinearity has increased the variance of an estimated coefficient. It looks at the extent to which an explanatory variable can be explained by all the other explanatory variables in the equation. The VIF for each independent variable can be obtained by regressing it against all others in the set being analysed, and then calculating (1/[1 − R2]). A VIF of 1.8 tells us that the variance of that predictor variable (i.e. its standard error) is 80% greater than would be the case with no collinearity effect: VIFs of 2.5 or greater are generally considered indicative of considerable collinearity suggesting that there will be difficulty in separating out the independent contribution of variables with such large VIFs—although some authors. Some strategies that can solve collinearity problems are: dropping a Redundant Variable, Transforming the Multicollinear Variables and Increasing the Sample Sizes. We used a p-value of less than 0.25 in bivariate regression analysis because most of the references used this cut off point to identify variables that are eligible for multiple linear regression analysis.

Q##: Results: pg 10: the r= 0.29 or 0.38 seems not to be a high correlation strength... Is there some mechanisms/literature to discuss further on the relationship?

Response: Well, thanks! To improve the correlation coefficient, one of the mechanisms is increasing the difference between the variables. This is done by identifying the independent variable observation, which is same or close to dependent observation value, and replacing it with the value which would increase the difference between the variables.

Q##: Results: pg 16: some of the observations were reported by only 1 participant. Would be good also if the discussion can be added on with more representative observations.

Response: Corrected with great thanks.

Q##: Table 3 pg 18: where does 0.71 derived from as it was not observed in table 3? Why the variable with beta 0.09 does was chosen as it was stated as not significant in the text? Would be good to discuss/clarify the selection of variables for the final analysis.

Response: Corrected with great thanks

Responses to reviewer #3

Authors would like to thank you for your comments and refining our manuscript for publication. Your comments were incorporated into the revised manuscript and answered one by one.

Q##: It is also important to illustrate the current status of municipal solid waste management in Ethiopia through statistical data, which can help readers understand why Ethiopian cities can be used as research objects. In addition, it is recommended to elaborate on the reasons for choosing Butajira Town as the specific research area in the Study area and period section.

Response: Corrected

Q##: the selection process of the research objects of the elicitation study should be explained.

Response: Corrected

Q##: In the section of Ethical considerations and informed consent, the authors obtained the permission from the Butajira health office on June 7, 2012, but the research period is from June 1 to 30, 2020. Please confirm that this time of permission is correct. Too long a time interval will cause confusion, and it is recommended to delete the content of permission.

Response: Corrected, June 7, 2012 was in Ethiopian calendar, changed to G.C. (June 19, 2020)

Q##: also the meaning of intention variables must be clearly explained

Response: We thank you for the comment and elaborated the meaning of intention variables.

Q##: In the section of Measurement, variables and operation definitions, the authors use three items on the Semantic Difference Scale to measure the intention of the solid waste management practice, but fails to explain the content of the items in the scale.

Response: Corrected

Q##: Although the authors divided attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behaviour control into two categories of direct and indirect, they did not present the content of the relevant items in the scale on the manuscript. In order to understand the meaning of the variables easily, it is recommended to select appropriate items in the scale to explain the variable.

Response: Corrected (we narrated this issue under measurement of variables in the manuscript). Thanks for the comment.

Q##: It is necessary to explain why there is no correlation between the direct and indirect measures of subjective norms.

Response: Corrected and explained in the text.

Q##: The authors should state their research hypothesis in the appropriate place of the manuscript.

Response: Stated with thanks!

Thank you very much to editor and reviewers for your precious comments!

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

24 Feb 2022

9 Apr 2022

Date: 08 April, 2022

Dear Academic Editor and Reviewers,

We thank you so much for your valuable comments and interest in the publication. We revised the comments of reviewer 2. The "Revised Manuscript with Track Changes" will show how much we improved our manuscript as per your comment.

We are also pleased to have an opportunity to revise our manuscript, entitled "Intention to Comply with Solid Waste Management Practices among Households in Butajira Town, Southern Ethiopia Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour" [PONE-D-21-28599]. The comments are very important to improve the quality of paper. We used track-changes to reply each concern as per your suggestion, and put below one by one. We believe the paper's quality has considerably improved after we addressed all of the issues identified.

Responses to Editor

• We considered the points you suggested to meet PLOS ONE's style requirements while you are preparing the manuscript.

N.B: Datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Responses to Reviewer #2

Thank you for your valuable comments and interest in our manuscript for publication. Your comments were incorporated into the revised manuscript and clarified one by one.

Q (1). Introduction: would suggest elaborating briefly on the studies applying TNB on waste management, e.g. the approaches, findings or limitations on the respective studies, instead of having lumped references, so that the research gap and the objective of the current work can be better highlighted.

Answer: Your comment is incorporated in the revised document. Thank you for the valuable comment.

Q(2). Research hypothesis: abbreviation PCB not defined.

Answer: We defined the abbreviation for the first time as Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC). Thank you for the comment.

Q(3). Methodology- Study design & Measurement, variables and operation definitions: for the 'solid waste management practice' and 'sustainable solid waste management practice' mentioned, are there any specific activities being referring to? e.g. waste segregation, home composting, collection etc.

Answer: Thank you for the concern and comments. Our research aim is to assess the intention of the households on the variables you listed under solid waste management, not to measure each variable in a practical manner. However, we put the operational definitions in the current document.

Q(4). Methodology- Data entry, processing and analysis: how is unstandardized β coefficient calculated and why is it chosen over standardized β coefficient?

Answer: Thank you for the comment. It is really interesting. β is unstandardized coefficients which means original units besides the slope and tell if the independent variable is a significant predictor of the dependent variable. Beta is a standardised coefficient between -1 to +1 in range and show the strength of the prediction. Unlike standardized coefficients, which are normalized unit-less coefficients, an unstandardized coefficient has units and a 'real life' scale. An unstandardized coefficient represents the amount of change in a dependent variable intention to solid waste management due to a change of 1 unit of independent variable (socio-demographic variables and others). In other words; unstandardized coefficients are obtained after running a regression model on variables measured in their original scales. Standardized coefficients are obtained after running a regression model on standardized variables (i.e. rescaled variables that have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1).

Q(5). Under Ethical considerations and informed consent, the reference number for the support letter appeared to have three empty boxes. Is it a typo? Kindly check.

Answer: We corrected in the revised manuscript. Thank you!

Q(6). R2 not subscripted. Kindly check.

Answer: Thanks for the comment. We corrected in the current document.

Q(7). Suggest the conclusion paragraph can be under a new section Conclusion.

Answer: Thank you so much for the comment. We put the conclusion paragraph in a new section.

Thank you very much to editor and reviewers for your valuable comments!

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

5 May 2022

Intention to Comply With Solid Waste Management Practices among Households in Butajira Town, Southern Ethiopia Using the Theory of Planned Behavior

PONE-D-21-28599R2

Dear Dr. Agide,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The study investigates the intention to comply with solid waste management practice among households based on of Planned Behavior and the relationship among behavior predictors. The comments have been addressed.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

30 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-28599R2

Intention to Comply With Solid Waste Management Practices among Households in Butajira Town, Southern Ethiopia Using the Theory of Planned Behavior

Dear Dr. Agide:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE